Monthly Archives: March 2011

This is the clearest statement the HDOH has given. When asked which of the records from Obama amending his birth certificate they had specifically denied access to, they said they had denied access to everything requested – all 4 items. They can only deny access to records that actually exist. Therefore all 4 requested records existed at the time the HDOH denied access. The relevant portions are highlighted.

I received the attached denials from the DOH and on appeal with the OIP to my UIPA request of August 18, 2009. However the particular records to which I was denied access, were not specified per the OIP administrative rules [§2-71-14(b)(1)].

This is the reference I received to the records that I requested, but it is not specific to my actual UIPA request (attached and also below):

“Therefore, neither a birth certificate nor any information related to a birth certificate may be disclosed to a personwho does not have a direct and tangible interest in it. You have not shown that you have such an interest inPresident Obama’s birth certificate, so we cannot disclose to you the birth certificate or any related information.” -Ms. Okubo

I did not request “President Obama’s birth certificate” and that was the only specific record mentioned in the denial.

Please specify exactly which records to which I was denied access per that rule. Below are the records I requested that day:

1.) I request an electronic copy of any and all UIPA requests made by President Barack Obama or anyoneclaiming to represent him for access to his personal vital records so that he could make ‘corrections’ to his vitalrecord information.

2.) I request an electronic copy of the ruling(s) or opinion(s) of those record requests.

3.) Please provide me electronic copies of all communication concerning formal or informal UIPA request(s)made by President Barack Obama or anyone claiming to represent him for access to his personal vital records.

4.) Please send me an electronic copy of any and all invoices and receipts of fees paid on behalf of or byPresident Obama for access to his vital records, amendments or anything pertaining to his vital records.

Either Judge Leon is a fool, or he’s corrupt, or he’s been bought. In Strunk’s case he ruled that:

1) a search of records from 1978 and later was a “reasonable search” for records from before 1967.

2) The following proof is not enough to overcome the “presumption of good faith”

a) the fact that the claims in the “cable” submitted with an affidavit are disproven by government records (retention schedule changes and destruction records that would have to exist if the claims were accurate, but don’t exist)

b) the fact that the DOS attorney deliberately removed critical words when quoting Jacobsen’s affidavit, in order to reverse the meaning of what Jacobsen actually said.

I’d like to know exactly what kind of evidence WOULD be enough to convince this knot-head judge that maybe somebody is lying and perpetrating a fraud on his court.

Folks, this country has no rule of law. The judges are just as lawless as the convicts. We are Iran.

Update: I contacted my senator to ask if the bill had been voted on. He said they would probably vote on it next Wednesday (March 16). There is still time to contact these senators and urge them to pass this sensible bill which would ensure that Nebraska voters are no longer told “It’s none of your business whether the Constitution and laws are obeyed.” Nebraska residents, please kindly ask them to vote for LB654, keeping in mind that the media has conditioned most people to think this issue is crazy:

This is the written testimony that I read (with a few modifications because info had already been given by previous comments), followed by the gist of the Q&A I received afterwards, as best I remember it, and last of all a report on the outcome of the hearing.

NJ law requires their SOS to verify Constitutional eligibility of Presidential candidates before placing them on the ballot. The Constitution says that only natural born citizens who are at least 35 years old and have resided in the US for 14 years are eligible. In 2008 their SOS placed these 3 candidates on the ballot:

John McCain, a white republican who was not born in the United States.

Barack Obama, a black democrat whose father was not a US citizen.

Roger Calero, a Hispanic communist who was not born in the US, whose parents were both non-citizens, and who is not a US citizen himself.

A concerned citizen, Leo Donofrio, sued to have NJ law upheld, saying that the Constitutional eligibility of all 3 candidates was legally uncertain. The courts ruled that he had no legal standing – that it was “not his business” whether or not either NJ law or the US Constitution had been violated. The Supreme Court can take up a case regardless of standing but declined to hear that case or any of the 50+ cases regarding eligibility.

This case tells us a few things. First, it tells us that this is not about political party, since the candidates for 3 parties were challenged. Nor is it about race, since those 3 candidates were of 3 different ethnicities. The issue is the rule of law at both state and federal levels, involving state statute and the US Constitution.

Second, it tells us what doesn’t work. Only statutes that require specific documentation and what it needs to document mean anything, and only statutes which give citizens standing to sue will ever actually be enforced.

The reason LB 654 is necessary is because of the confusion over whose “business” Presidential eligibility is. For brevity I’ve written up a series of “headlines” to concisely show the current situation:

US Constitution: “President Must be Natural Born Citizen”

Congressional Research Service: “Eligibility Is States’, Congress, and Courts’ Business”

Congress: “It’s State and Court Business”

States: “It’s Congress and Court Business”

Lower Courts: “It’s Nobody’s Business”

Judge Robertson: “It’s Twitter’s Business”

Supreme Court: No Comment

Secretaries of State: “Everybody is eligible”

Media: “If We Don’t Report it You’re Crazy to Care About It”

Current NE Statute: “Trust Politicians and Media”

Sounds just like my kids when it’s time to sort the laundry. Always somebody else’s business so nobody gets it done. Except in this case, the only people who CAN interpret the Constitution are the courts (and they refuse) and the only people who WANT to enforce the Constitution are the people (and the courts won’t even let them raise the issue, saying they lack standing).

LB 654 would create a case with “standing”, so the courts can rule on the definition of “natural born citizen”. Any arguments saying that LB 654 is unconstitutional miss the key point: the only way we will get a definition for NBC is if there IS a law or candidate that is challenged in the courts.

There is every reason in the world to believe that LB 654 IS Constitutional, though, because the legal source which defined “natural born citizen” when the Constitution was ratified (de Vattel) said a “natural born citizen” is someone born on the country’s soil to citizen parents. Even 7 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court said that any other definition would be questionable because it is not known whether children born to non-citizens are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US (as required by the 14th Amendment) or to the country of their parents’ citizenship.

And indeed, when the US Senate unanimously passed a non-binding resolution declaring John McCain a “natural born citizen” even though born in Panama, they based that on him having 2 citizen parents. So those who say that parents’ citizenship is only an issue for the “fringe of the fringe” will be happy to know that the “fringe of the fringe” includes all 100 US Senators in 2008 – including Barack Obama, his current VP Joe Biden, and his current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

I’ve written up a booklet which gives details. I sent this booklet out to each of the committee members ahead-of-time because it has a lot of important information. It addresses the Constitutional issues that have been raised, and why I believe LB 654 is Constitutional in every way. And I will happily entertain any questions on those issues at the close of my testimony. But ultimately, the only parts of LB 654 that will survive are those which pass Constitutional muster, which will leave us with a definition of “natural born citizen” and the means to implement that definition in the State of Nebraska – which is exactly what we need if we are serious about defending the United States Constitution.

One state to our south, a decorated Iraq war vet sits in jail because his officer’s oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution would not allow him in good conscience to say, “It’s somebody else’s business.” His oath meant something to him. Regardless of what anybody thinks of how Lt Col Terry Lakin chose to protect the US Constitution, nobody should question how much his oath meant to him. He gave up $800,000 of his personal savings, the rest of his career as a military surgeon including benefits, and a comfortable military retirement – easily adding up to 3 million dollars. Trying to uphold his oath also cost him his reputation and 6 months in prison. Defending the US Constitution was worth that much to him.

His Commander in Chief could have spent 2 minutes authorizing the release of records he claimed to already have disclosed, and put Lakin’s conscience at ease. Apparently it wasn’t worth 2 minutes of the Commander in Chief’s time.

And now the question that I place before this committee is this: How much is your word worth? When you made the oath to support the US Constitution, did you mean it, or are you expecting somebody else to do it for you? The way you vote today will answer that question.

Question and Answer Session:

Q: How can a state legislature be able to say who has standing for a federal court case?

A: Just like the committee had to figure out (in the previous hearing) who has standing to access accident records, the legislature has the right to grant standing to sue. And this suit would be in the state court. The Constitution gives the federal judiciary jurisdiction to hear and decide cases where a state is a party in the suit. If somebody sued the Nebraska Secretary of State over placement on the ballot, Nebraska would be a party in the suit which would give the federal courts jurisdiction.

Q: What if the Supreme Court refused to take the case?

A: If the Supreme Court refuses to take a case they are allowing the ruling of the lower court to stand, in which case we still have a decision on the meaning of “natural born citizen”, which is what we need before any of the state Secretaries of State can actually know who should be placed on their ballots. The media has falsely reported that the Supreme Court has upheld lower courts’ rulings that Obama is Constitutionally eligible. The only rulings that lower courts have made is that it is nobody’s business. They have never heard the cases on the merits, never ruled on the eligibility of either Obama or McCain or on the meaning of “natural born citizen”.

Q: As a student of history, do you realize that certain people who served (can’t remember the name he gave) would not be eligible under this bill?

A: I’m not really concerned about where the chips fall for any particular person. We have a Constitution and it needs to be followed. What happens with any particular candidate doesn’t matter to me – Obama, McCain, Jindal, Rubio…. It doesn’t matter if I like this or that person, only If they’re eligible according to the Constitution. This issue is not going away because we’ve got leaders coming up whose natural born citizenship will be in question. We need a process that obeys the Constitution. In 2008 I was given a ballot that didn’t have any candidate that I could know for sure was eligible for the job. And we never CAN know those candidates’ eligibility until we know the definition of “natural born citizen”.

Q: What are you wanting to get out of this bill?

A: I want a process that makes sure that the requirements of the US Constitution are obeyed.

Q: You say you are representing yourself. Are you a member of any group or have any affiliations that you represent?

A: No, I don’t belong to any groups. I’m a housewife. I actually got started on this issue because I had questions in my own mind. The officials had made statements and I thought it would be pretty easy just to make sure they meant what it seemed like they meant. It was when I started communicating with the government officials that I realized how much lawlessness is going on in government on this issue. There are so many laws being broken on this issue, by government bureaucrats. You’ve got the booklet that I printed up and I hope everybody reads that because it details some of that, and I’ve documented a lot of the law-breaking on my blog as well. To me this is an issue of the rule of law. Laws and rules are being broken.

Q: So you are basically asking the Nebraska legislature to pass a law that invites a lawsuit we will have to pay to defend, so that “natural born citizen” will be defined?

A: Yes, that’s basically what needs to happen. It’s the only way the issue can be resolved. But Nebraska has an attorney general whose job is to deal with Constitutional issues. Right now he’s challenging the Constitutionality of the healthcare reform. That’s his job, to deal with important Constitutional issues. As it is, Nebraska taxpayers are having their federal tax dollars spent to argue these eligibility cases anyway, in defense of Obama. If we had one decision on “natural born citizen” it could prevent all these other lawsuits from having to happen and would save everybody money in the long run. Our military vets should not be spending 3 million of their own personal money just to find out eligibility, when it is really the state’s responsibility to have a process where that is ensured. And whatever cost the state would incur would well be worth it, because then normal people could know that the process could be trusted, and that they have a way to hold the government accountable to the rule of law.

Q: So this really becomes an issue of government transparency?

A: Absolutely. This is absolutely about having a process where we know that the rule of law is being upheld and where normal people can hold government accountable. This really is the business of normal people, and if we know that we have a way to hold government accountable, it will increase the government’s credibility and the people’s trust, which is an important thing.

“State Sen. Bill Avery, who chairs the committee, said the Nebraska bill, LB654, would die there.”

I don’t have any records yet regarding how each committee member voted, or the records of their deliberations among themselves. If/when I get that information I will post it here.

So there you have it. The committee apparently answered MY one question by saying no, they didn’t mean it when they swore to support the US Constitution, but are expecting somebody else to do it for them.

The next step in this process is to do their sworn job of supporting the US Constitution for them, since that seems to be their demand. I need to find out what help I can get to get signatures for a ballot initiative that would go something like this:

Any registered Nebraska voter shall have legal standing to challenge in court the legal eligibility of any candidate on the ballot, provided that the legal challenge is filed in state court before the term of office at stake in that election begins.

If you or somebody you know would be willing to help in that effort, please contact me. The US Constitution and the rule of law IS our business. That’s what America is all about. Our elected officials aren’t hearing what we’re saying to them. It’s time for we the people to step up and reaffirm the basic, foundational principles of our Constitution: the rule of law and government that belongs to the people.

This is testimony for the committee hearing Thursday, March 10, for LB 654, Nebraska’s eligibility bill:

I’m Nellie (redacted) and I’m representing myself.

NJ law requires their SOS to verify Constitutional eligibility of Presidential candidates before placing them on the ballot. The Constitution says that only natural born citizens who are at least 35 years old and have resided in the US for 14 years are eligible. In 2008 their SOS placed these 3 candidates on the ballot:

John McCain, a white republican who was not born in the United States.

Barack Obama, a black democrat whose father was not a US citizen.

Roger Calero, a Hispanic communist who was not born in the US, whose parents were both non-citizens, and who is not a US citizen himself.

A concerned citizen, Leo Donofrio, sued to have NJ law upheld, saying that the Constitutional eligibility of all 3 candidates was legally uncertain. The courts ruled that he had no legal standing – that it was “not his business” whether or not either NJ law or the US Constitution had been violated. The Supreme Court can take up a case regardless of standing but declined to hear that case or any of the 50+ cases regarding eligibility.

This case tells us a few things. First, it tells us that this is not about political party, since the candidates for 3 parties were challenged. Nor is it about race, since those 3 candidates were of 3 different ethnicities. The issue is the rule of law at both state and federal levels, involving state statute and the US Constitution.

Second, it tells us what doesn’t work. Only statutes that require specific documentation and what it needs to document mean anything, and only statutes which give citizens standing to sue will ever actually be enforced.

The reason LB 654 is necessary is because of the confusion over whose “business” Presidential eligibility is. For brevity I’ve written up a series of “headlines” to concisely show the current situation:

US Constitution: “President Must be Natural Born Citizen”

Congressional Research Service: “Eligibility Is States’, Congress, and Courts’ Business”

Congress: “It’s State and Court Business”

States: “It’s Congress and Court Business”

Lower Courts: “It’s Nobody’s Business”

Judge Robertson: “It’s Twitter’s Business”

Supreme Court: No Comment

Secretaries of State: “Everybody is eligible”

Media: “If We Don’t Report it You’re Crazy to Care About It”

Current NE Statute: “Trust Politicians and Media”

Sounds just like my kids when it’s time to sort the laundry. Always somebody else’s business so nobody gets it done. Except in this case, the only people who CAN interpret the Constitution are the courts (and they refuse) and the only people who WANT to enforce the Constitution are the people (and the courts won’t even let them raise the issue, saying they lack standing).

LB 654 would create a case with “standing”, so the courts can rule on the definition of “natural born citizen”. Any arguments saying that LB 654 is unconstitutional miss the key point: the only way we will get a definition for NBC is if there IS a law or candidate that is challenged in the courts.

There is every reason in the world to believe that LB 654 IS Constitutional, though, because the legal source which defined “natural born citizen” when the Constitution was ratified (de Vattel) said a “natural born citizen” is someone born on the country’s soil to citizen parents. Even 7 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court said that any other definition would be questionable because it is not known whether children born to non-citizens are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US (as required by the 14th Amendment) or to the country of their parents’ citizenship.

And indeed, when the US Senate unanimously passed a non-binding resolution declaring John McCain a “natural born citizen” even though born in Panama, they based that on him having 2 citizen parents. So those who say that parents’ citizenship is only an issue for the “fringe of the fringe” will be happy to know that the “fringe of the fringe” includes all 100 US Senators in 2008 – including Barack Obama, his current VP Joe Biden, and his current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

I’ve written up a booklet which gives details. I sent this booklet out to each of the committee members ahead-of-time because it has a lot of important information. It addresses the Constitutional issues that have been raised, and why I believe LB 654 is Constitutional in every way. And I will happily entertain any questions on those issues at the close of my testimony. But ultimately, the only parts of LB 654 that will survive are those which pass Constitutional muster, which will leave us with a definition of “natural born citizen” and the means to implement that definition in the State of Nebraska – which is exactly what we need if we are serious about defending the United States Constitution.

One state to our south, a decorated Iraq war vet sits in jail because his officer’s oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution would not allow him in good conscience to say, “It’s somebody else’s business.” His oath meant something to him. Regardless of what anybody thinks of how Lt Col Terry Lakin chose to protect the US Constitution, nobody should question how much his oath meant to him. He gave up $800,000 of his personal savings, the rest of his career as a military surgeon including benefits, and a comfortable military retirement – easily adding up to 3 million dollars. Trying to uphold his oath also cost him his reputation and 6 months in prison. Defending the US Constitution was worth that much to him.

His Commander in Chief could have spent 2 minutes authorizing the release of records he claimed to already have disclosed, and put Lakin’s conscience at ease. Apparently it wasn’t worth 2 minutes of the Commander in Chief’s time.

And now the question that I place before this committee is this: How much is your word worth? When you made the oath to support the US Constitution, did you mean it, or are you expecting somebody else to do it for you? The way you vote today will answer that question.

I don’t know if the committee has actually voted on the bill, but an article here has Committee Chair Bill Avery saying the bill will not make it out of committee. Apparently the answer to my question was “no”. They didn’t mean it. When I can find out how the individual members voted I will post it here.

I’m going to see if I can find video of the hearing. If so, I’ll link it. If not, I’ll write up a post describing the questions and answers as best I can remember them (which may not be the best since my memory is terrible, but I’ll do the best I can).

FACT: Voters do the only security check for elected officials. The vote IS the security check.

But voters have no legal standing to see critical records – even for the wannabe CEO of foreign policy, military, Supreme Court, and all law enforcement and regulatory agencies. Judges say not enough is at stake for us – even for active military. Legally it’s “none of our business”.

Even with proof of ineligibility, voters can do nothing about it legally. When the NJ SOS put a non-citizen on the Presidential ballot the courts said the rule of law was “none of our business”. It never will be until our laws specifically say it is.

A hearing is March 10th. Please ask Senators Avery, Price, Brasch, Janssen, Karpisek, Pahls, Schumacher, and Sullivan to support LB 654. Voters need a definition for “natural born citizen”, access to critical records, and standing to hold politicians legally accountable. The rule of law, national security, & our Constitution ARE our business.

After being told they would cut out the first paragraphs because “The first couple of graphs are fairly confusing to us“, I read the letter to a couple of my apolitical friends and asked if it was confusing (they said no) and had them tell me what it meant (they understood it perfectly). I told them the situation and after they told me this gal was definitely BS-ing me I responded with this:

The first couple of paragraphs are the meat of my letter. They contain factual information that is critical to understanding why LB 654 has even been proposed: there is no security check, nobody has legal standing to see even the most basic of records, and even when we KNOW somebody is ineligible we can’t make a secretary of state follow state laws.

If you won’t print those background facts, my letter is left with no substance.

But I can tell you that I read the entire proposed letter to several people who have no experience with this issue at all, and they had no problem understanding what was said.

What was particularly confusing to you?

The response: “The reference to a “security check” and “legal standing” are unclear. The court rulings that I saw don’t refer to “legal standing” as such.”

I responded with:

There is no security check for elected officials. The FBI, CIA, and secret service are not allowed to check any records. We can’t even know whether the person claiming to be a person actually is that person. Lots of people believe that we could never elect anybody really bad or dangerous because they wouldn’t be able to pass a security clearance. But there is no security clearance. The election is all there is. If the voters can’t find out the information, then nobody can. That is a CRITICAL point that voters and legislators really need to know. And those who read my letter understood that clearly.

What court cases have you looked at? Of the 50+ cases that have been filed, all but 2 were dismissed because the plaintiff was ruled to not have legal standing. Did you not understand the term “legal standing”, or were you thinking that in the 200 words I am allowed I should have listed the court cases and their legal rationale?

Again, those who read my letter explained to me that they understood that the judges refused to decide the cases – which is what people need to know. There is no way for anybody to get a legal ruling on anything unless the law specifically creates a way for that to happen. That’s why this bill is so necessary. A critical point.

I assure you that the facts I have stated are correct. Others who read it were able to understand what I stated. If they didn’t understand it, they could write me off as stupid or they could check out the facts themselves. Why should they not have a chance to at least hear what I have to say?

This morning she sent this: “Nellie: I understand your position; I ran this by another editor to come up with what we could run, because I did want to get your view in. But if you don’t want us to publish what we feel we can, that’s your right.”

They don’t “feel they can” publish the first couple paragraphs containing the facts that refute their own editorial inaccuracies. What journalistic integrity they display! (sarc)

I responded with this:

I don’t much care what anybody thinks of my view; what I care about is that people know the facts, and that is apparently the part of my letter that you don’t want to print – even though normal people are well able to understand the facts as I wrote them.

Please cite the court cases you looked at where legal standing was not an issue. The facts in my letter were too “confusing” for you to print because you apparently knew nothing about any cases being thrown out for lack of standing. Of the 50+ cases on Obama’s eligibility there was only one case you could have looked at where standing was not denied. If you are “confused” by the facts regarding any of the other 49 cases you accidentally overlooked, that says to me “tunnel vision” and “selective attention”.

Apparently nobody in the LJS readership is allowed to hear facts that you choose to be personally ignorant of – as decided by you and at least one other editor at the Lincoln Journal-Star.

As state eligibility bills are being debated in committee hearings (Nebraska’s is March 10th; pray for us), I’ve prepared a 10-page booklet that addresses the misconceptions and deceptions that are out there. I’ve got this in a PDF format so people can copy it electronically or in print form and use it or anything in it as they see fit, as long as accuracy is maintained. So much is at stake. This country is SO worth our time and effort.

Thank you for your help in educating as many as possible. Spring always comes eventually. =)

§338-16 Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates. (a) Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”.

(b) A summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for late filing or the alteration shall be endorsed on the certificates.

HDOH Administrative Rules list 2 kinds of birth certificates: standard (long-form) and abbreviated (COLB). Both kinds have to note amendments, as is illustrated by the examples here.

The Factcheck COLB says it was “filed” on Aug 8, 1961, which the HDOH says is the date it was given a number at the HDOH office. If so, the birth certificate was amended 45 years after it was “filed with the department of health” and according to HRS 338-16 must thus note the amendment, date of the amendment, and the evidence to support the amendment. The date of issuance on the Factcheck COLB is June 6, 2007, so if it truly came from the HDOH office it would have to have note of the 2006 amendment. It doesn’t, and neither does the COLB posted on Obama’s own campaign website. Both are thus indirectly yet officially confirmed as forgeries.

As mentioned above, the HDOH has said that for Oahu births, the “date filed” has always meant the day the HDOH gave the birth certificate a number. As can be seen here, the Factcheck COLB has the information in the chart below. The bottom 2 lines give the information for Susan and Gretchen Nordyke:

Name “Date Filed by Registrar” Certificate Number

Barack Obama II (Factcheck COLB) Aug 8, 1961 151-1961-010641

Susan Nordyke (born 2:12pm Aug 5) Aug 11, 1961 151-61-010637

Gretchen Nordyke (born 2:17pm Aug 5) Aug 11, 1961 151-61-010638

The Factcheck COLB claims to have been given a number 3 days earlier than the Nordyke certificates, and yet it has a higher (later) number than either of theirs.

At first, people tried to explain the discrepancy by saying that maybe the hospitals had pre-numbered birth certificates and the pile got out of order at the hospital, but the HDOH confirmed that only the HDOH office gave the certificate numbers.

And some tried to explain it by saying maybe the pile got out of order at the HDOH office. But the HDOH has said the number was given on the “date filed” so something that was numbered on Aug 8th wouldn’t still be in the pile to get mixed up with the certificates that were numbered 3 days later. What was numbered on Tuesday skipped ahead to number 641 and then what was numbered on Friday went back to 637 and 638.

Some suggested that the number was different on a COLB than on its long-form, so the discrepancies were because the Nordykes’ were long-forms and Factcheck’s a COLB. But an individual’s long-form and COLB have the same number.

The “date filed” and certificate number for the Factcheck COLB are not compatible, given the HDOH’s explanation for what “date filed” means and the numbers on the Nordyke certificates.

Three: Neil Abercrombie’s statements to Mike EvansAccording to his recorded on-air comments to radio host Peter Boyles, when Hollywood insider reporter Mike Evans saw the Abercrombie interview that was published Jan 18th (see addendum) he called up the governor’s office to find out from his long-time friend what was actually going on. The next day, Jan 19th, he reported to radio stations all over the country what he had found out (there are reportedly at least 3 other recordings in addition to the 2 below where Evans made these claims).

In the recorded audio of “Austin’s Morning News” (transcript here ) he says,

“Yesterday I talked to Neil. Said that he searched everywhere using all of his power as governor, looking at Kapiolani Women and Children’s Hospital and Queens Medical Center, where children were born back in that day. And he said, “Mike, there is no Barack Obama cer, birth certificate…Well, the governor w, demanded to see it, went to the hospital, sent all of his people, a search warrant, and he could not get it. Uh, there, he’s really good friends to the President but he says, he thinks this could cause some problems during re-election…

I’ve known Neil for long (chuckles) long time and he really, he’s a left-wing nut. I mean, I love him, but uh, yeah, he was, he was, you’re exactly right. He was hoping this would get rid of this problem and that he would prove that he was born in the United States. Unfortunately it backfired on him.

In the recorded audio with KQRS – Minneapolis (transcript here ) he said:

Yesterday talking in Neil’s office, Neil says that he searched everywhere using his power as governor at the Kapiolani Women’s and Children’s Hospital and Queen’s Hospital, the only place that kids were born in Hawaii back when Barack was born, … there is no Barack Obama birth certificate in Hawaii…Absolutely no proof, at all, that he was born in Hawaii…Now he went out, he LOVES Obama. I mean he purposely did this to get rid of that, that question. Now, got some egg in the face. I mean now he admits publically that there is no birth certificate…

And I asked him, I go, “Well, when do you remember when do you remember Barack? When’s your first memory?” And he goes, ‘I remember him playing, like, in the T-ball league.’ And I go, “Well, when he was, like, five or six.” And he goes, “Something like that.” And I go, “Well, what about before that?” And he goes, “Well, I don’t really remember him much before that.” which I thought was very odd…

I’m tellin’ ya’. Neil and I are buddies and during this whole inauguration when I was in Washington for those a ten days, I spent a lot of time with Neil, and anytime anybody would come up and bring this up, you’re right, Neil was almost militant about it. “I remember him as a kid. He’s from Hawaii, born and raised …” so, needless to say, I’m sure he was shocked more than anybody by this whole thing.

By the next week the story of what Mike Evans had said made it onto Drudge Report, and Rush Limbaugh opened his monologue with the story. The next day Evans gave an interview with Peter Boyles and Jerome Corsi, in which he said he had never claimed to speak with Abercrombie, but only his office – which is documentably false, as seen in the Austin recording above.

He said he “mis-spoke”, and the media totally dropped it, with Anderson Cooper, Bill O’Reilly, and David Gregory very shortly thereafter railing about how stupid “birthers” are because they won’t believe all the evidence out of Hawaii. They totally blew off the fact that what Mike Evans claimed was totally consistent with what Abercrombie had told the Star Advertiser columnist in published reports, and brings into very, very serious doubt whether there is any valid record that even COULD result in the COLB that Factcheck claimed was genuine.

An OB doctor has told me that hospitals don’t keep copies of birth certificates after they have been sent to the Vital Records Office. But someone who trains hospital personnel in record-keeping has told me that hospitals DO keep OB patient logs for a long, long time, and someone unrelated who wished to see those logs without permission from the patient would need a subpoena. In the published interview Abercrombie referred to an “investigation”, which could mean that he had commissioned an investigative committee with power to subpoena records from the hospitals. We don’t know. Mike Evans was going to talk to Abercrombie to clarify some things but last I knew Abercrombie was not answering any questions.

What we do know is that the place to look for a legally valid birth certificate is in the Vital Records Office, and the only reason for Abercrombie to go looking in either the hospitals or the State Archive is if there was nothing legally valid in the Vital Records Office.

Abercrombie’s communications to the columnist and to Mike Evans confirm that there is no legally valid birth certificate for Obama in Hawaii, and the HDOH COULD NOT HAVE printed the COLB that is shown on either Factcheck or Obama’s own campaign website.

Former City and County of Honolulu Elections Division official, Tim Adams, has signed an affidavit swearing that:

Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division told me on multiple occasions that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama in the Hawaii Department of Health and there was no record that any such document had ever been on file in the Hawaii Department of Health or any other branch or department of the Hawaii government…

Senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division further told me on multiple occasions that Hawaii State government officials had made inquiries about Sen. Obama’s birth records to officials at Queens Medical Center and Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu and that neither hospital had any record of Senator Obama having been born there, even though Governor Abercrombie is now asserting and various Hawaii government officials continue to assert Barack Obama, Jr. was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center on Aug 4, 1961.

During the course of my employment, I came to understand that for political reasons, various officials in the government of Hawaii, including then-Governor Linda Lingle and various officials of the Hawaii Department of Health, including Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the director of the Hawaii Department of Health, were making representations that Senator Obama was born in Hawaii, even though no government official in Hawaii could find a long-form birth certificate for Senator Obama that had been issued by a Hawaii hospital at the time of his birth…

During the course of my employment I was told by senior officers in the City and County of Honolulu Elections Division to stop inquiring about Senator Obama’s Hawaii birth records, even though it was common knowledge among my fellow employees that no Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Senator Obama.”

Conclusion: In view of all 4 confirmations (by Hawaii government officials) that the Factcheck COLB is in fact a forgery and has been known as a forgery by HDOH personnel for quite some time, Tim Adams’ sworn statements ring very true. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the Factcheck COLB is a forgery which could never have been produced by the HDOH because there is no legally valid birth record for Obama in Hawaii – a fact which the HDOH has furiously sought to hide, as evidenced by the corrupt and illegal behaviors documented elsewhere in this blog (see the “Government Corruption in HI” section here ).

ADDENDUM:

The following is based on Abercrombie using technical terms, which he may not have been doing. He may have used the word “archives” as simply meaning the older vital records stored at the HDOH office, and the columnist misunderstood. Without direct quotes of what he actually said he found, it’s hard to say what he meant. Given the other evidence and Abercrombie’s implication in the interview – that what he’s found will not be enough to convince those with a “political agenda” – it would be reasonable to conclude that he did not find a long-form birth certificate in the archives. It can’t be proven that this is what he meant, so this information is offered not as proof of anything but only as support for the accuracy of Mike Evans’ original statements. Given what the columnist thought Abercrombie had said (“state archives”), further clarification and/or investigation is warranted, which is my major point.

In late December 2010, HI Governor Neil Abercrombie came out with interviews to both the New York Times and the LA Times, saying that he was angered by “birthers” because anybody could ask him and he could tell them he was in Hawaii when Obama was born at Kapiolani Hospital; he remembered Barack Obama Sr and his wife, Ann, bringing the child to social events. He said he was talking with his Attorney General and Health Director to find a way to release proof of Obama’s Hawaii birth, since “birthers” were “disrespecting” Obama’s parents and the office of the presidency, as well as Hawaiians in general as if being born in Hawaii doesn’t make a person a US citizen. Politically-motivated people, he said, were pushing “birther” bills in state legislatures, and it was time to put the story to rest.

Exactly 3 weeks later, in an interview given Jan 14th and published on Jan 18th by Richard Borreca, political columnist for the Star Advertiser, the following exchange was reported (emphasis mine):

Q: You stirred up quite a controversy with your comments regarding birthers and your plans to release more information regarding President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. How is that coming?

A: I got a letter from someone the other day who was genuinely concerned about it; it is not all just political agenda. They were talking on Olelo last night about this; it has a political implication for 2012 that we simply cannot have.

(Abercrombie said there is a recording of the birth in the State Archives and he wants to use that.)

It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down …

…What I can do, and all I have ever said, is that I am going to see to it as governor that I can verify to anyone who is honest about it that this is the case.

If there is a political agenda then there is nothing I can do about that, nor can the president.

Notice the excerpting and parenthetical statement. It seems clear that Abercrombie told Borreca exactly what he found and Borreca chose to edit out those comments. What “recording of the birth” would there be, written down in the State Archives? According to the HDOH retention schedule, the only vital records authorized to be stored in the State Archive rather than at the Vital Records Office are

Certificates of Hawaiian Birth and index to foreign birth that are at least 75 years old (see page 5)

Certificates of Foreign Birth (VDR-11) See page 1 and note at the bottom the specific request that only VDR-11 Master Microfilm be stored at the State Archive. It should be noted also that the HDOH says they have no index to certificates of foreign birth – not even electronically. That means that there are either no certificates of foreign birth to be indexed, the HDOH includes foreign births in their standard index data, or they lied.

It’s not supposed to require an “investigation” to find records for a person with a legally valid birth certificate. It’s supposed to be a matter of finding it in the Vital Records Office – like former HDOH Director Fukino implied that she had done. If former Gov Lingle was able to order Fukino to look at Obama’s records then why did Abercrombie have to go to the State Archive to find anything? Because what Fukino found was also in the State Archive – in which case it was NOT a legally-valid record (either a long-form birth certificate resulting from a hospital birth, or legally-valid documentation of a home birth through affidavits and doctor’s examination and records).

In effect, the cartoon below is what the national media let Abercrombie get away with – not reporting or seemingly even grasping that if what Abercrombie said in a published report was true, there is no legally valid birth record for Obama in Hawaii, and Obama, Factcheck and the HDOH have been covering up a very public forgery all along.

Pursuant to UIPA, I request an electronic copy of the index for certificates of foreign birth (VDR-10, which is to be retained permanently) from the year 1982 until now, with all non-discloseable parts redacted.

This is the more understandable summary of how we know that the Hawaii Department of Health indirectly but legally/officially confirmed that Obama’s birth certificate was amended in 2006 and is thus not legally valid:

After a lot of hassle, sorting out, and back-and-forth between her and attorneys at Hawaii’s Office of Information Practices (OIP), requester (Terri K) requested from the Hawaii Department of Health copies of the receipts and invoices resulting from Obama seeing and amending his birth certificate. The OIP attorney twice told Terri K that she could ask for those records but there might not be any if Obama didn’t amend his birth certificate, in which case the Department of Health should tell her so. The first step an agency is required to do when answering these requests for records is to see whether they HAVE the requested records. If they don’t have them, they say so right away and the processing of the request ends there. The HI law governing disclosures (Uniform Information Practices Act, or UIPA) only applies to records that exist, so if the records don’t exist, there is no reason to sort out whether UIPA allows disclosure.

If they have the requested records, they then go on to decide whether they can be disclosed. If they can disclose them, they do. If they can’t disclose them they say they can’t disclose them and cite the reason they can’t. If they are required to keep it a secret whether the records even exist (a very rare situation such as for firearms permit applications, criminal records, rape victim records, etc), they say that the records, IF ANY, cannot be disclosed (a “Glomarized” response which hides whether a record even exists). If an agency gives a non-Glomarized denial of access to requested records it is an admission that those records exist.

On sept 3, 2009 the HDOH responded to Terri’s request by saying they could not disclose “any related information” because she did not have a direct and tangible interest, as Hawaii law requires in order for the disclosure to be made:

“…Therefore, neither a birth certificate nor any information related to a birth certificate may be disclosed to a person who does not have a direct and tangible interest in it. You have not shown that you have such an interest in President Obama’s birth certificate, so we cannot disclose to you the birth certificate or any related information…”

Terri K didn’t understand that response or whether it was correct. So she appealed to the OIP for a ruling on whether that was a correct response. The OIP attorney replied that

“…It appears the Department of Health (“DOH”) denied your request by referring to a provision of the Uniform Information Practices Act (“UIPA”) and a statute addressing vital statistics records… The DOH’s interpretation of the UIPA and section 338-18, H.R.S are correct…”

So access to the records had been denied, which is an admission that they exist. There were receipts and invoices resulting from Obama seeing and amending his birth certificate.

Later on Terri reminded the Department of Health of all the things she had specifically asked for and asked them to clarify (as required by law) which of her requested records they had specifically denied access to. The DOH told her:

“Your request was denied in its entirety…”

So the Department of Health acknowledged that on Sept 3, 2009 they had denied access to all of the records Terri had asked for, which is an admission that they all existed – including invoices and receipts from Obama amending his birth certificate.

Later on, I sent a request identical to the “invoices and receipts” portion of Terri’s request. On January 5, 2010 the DOH responded,

“There are no records responsive to your request.”

That told me two things:

First, it told me that the existence or non-existence of those records WAS discloseable, confirming in yet another way that their response to Terri could not have been a Glomarized response but was in fact a denial of records that were acknowledged to exist.

Second, it told me that the receipts and invoices that still existed on Sept 3, 2009 were destroyed by Jan 5, 2010. Receipts and invoices have a 3-year retention period, so that 3-year time period ran out and the records were destroyed sometime between 9-3-09 and 1-5-10. That means that they came into existence sometime between 9-3-06 and 1-5-07.

So through all these official communications the DOH indirectly but officially/legally confirmed that Obama amended his birth certificate sometime in the final quarter of 2006 – which was precisely when he was considering a run for the presidency.

HRS 338-17 says that an amended birth certificate is not self-authenticating as evidence:

§338-17 Late or altered certificate as evidence. The probative value of a “late” or “altered” certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence. [L 1949, c 327, §21; RL 1955, §57-20; HRS §338-17; am L 1997, c 305, §4]

And the standard COLB form has in capital letters “ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE”.

In other words, since Obama’s birth certificate is amended it is not legally valid and has no automatic evidentiary value. The State of Hawaii does not vouch for the accuracy of the claims on that birth certificate.

The Hawaii Department of Health has indirectly but legally/officially confirmed that they have no LEGALLY VALID birth certificate for Obama. And none of the announcements by now-former-DOH Director, Chiyome Fukino, ever claimed that the records she saw were LEGALLY VALID.